FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Salanta Devi and another ...Appellants Versus Sandeep Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) On account of the death of Shiv Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, his mother and brother ins3tuted a claim pe33on under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa3on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 24.07.2025, awarded compensa3on of ₹14,60,640/- along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensa3on, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement, accompanied by applica3on CM-5398-CII-2026 under Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act, 1963 seeking condona3on of delay of 125 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 3. It is pleaded that the appellants were not conversant with the legal procedure and remained dependent upon the advice of their counsel. It is further averred that appellant No.1, having lost her elder son in the unfortunate accident, underwent severe emo3onal trauma and financial hardship, due to which the appeal could not be ins3tuted within the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [2] prescribed period. It is submiCed that the delay is neither deliberate nor inten3onal. 4. Having heard learned counsel and examined the applica3on, this Court is not persuaded to condone the delay. 5. The appellants had ac3vely contested the claim pe33on before the learned Tribunal through a duly engaged counsel. Therefore, the plea that they were unaware of the legal procedure or the prescribed period of limita3on cannot cons3tute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act. A li3gant represented by counsel cannot ordinarily seek condona3on of delay merely on the ground of ignorance of legal technicali3es. 6. The plea of financial hardship is equally devoid of merit. Except for a bald asser3on, no documentary material or other convincing evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that the alleged financial constraints actually prevented the appellants from approaching this Court within the period of limita3on. Likewise, though the death of a family member undoubtedly causes immense grief, the applica3on does not disclose any specific circumstance explaining how such emo3onal distress con3nued to operate throughout the en3re period of delay or prevented the appellants from availing the statutory remedy within 3me.

7. It is well seCled that although the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive a liberal construc3on, the discre3on under Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act cannot be exercised in the absence of a bona fide and sa3sfactory explana3on covering the en3re period of delay. The explana3on furnished by the appellants is vague, general and unsupported by any material par3culars. Consequently, the delay of 125 days remains unexplained. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [3] 8. Accordingly, the applica3on is dismissed. 9. On merits, Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the only grievance raised in the present appeal is that compensa3on under the head of loss of consor3um has been awarded to the mother of the deceased but not to his brother. 10. This Court finds no merit in the said conten3on. 11. The concept of consor3um has undergone considerable expansion through judicial pronouncements. However, the law as authorita3vely explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Na onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR Civil 1009, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognizes spousal, parental and filial consor3um. A sibling does not ordinarily fall within the category of beneficiaries en3tled to compensa3on under the conven3onal head of consor3um.

12. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has already awarded filial consor3um to the mother of the deceased in accordance with the seCled legal posi3on. No legal right has been shown in favour of the brother to claim consor3um independently. Thus, the sole ground urged in support of the appeal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. No other argument has been advanced to demonstrate that the compensa3on assessed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any error in the assessment of income, mul3plier, deduc3ons or the conven3onal heads. 14. Accordingly, even on merits, no case for enhancement is made out. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [4] 15. Resultantly, CM-5398-CII-2026 seeking condona3on of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limita3on. Even otherwise, on merits also, the appeal is found to be devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. 07.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Salanta Devi and another ...Appellants Versus Sandeep Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) On account of the death of Shiv Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, his mother and brother ins3tuted a claim pe33on under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa3on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 24.07.2025, awarded compensa3on of ₹14,60,640/- along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensa3on, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement, accompanied by applica3on CM-5398-CII-2026 under Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act, 1963 seeking condona3on of delay of 125 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 3. It is pleaded that the appellants were not conversant with the legal procedure and remained dependent upon the advice of their counsel. It is further averred that appellant No.1, having lost her elder son in the unfortunate accident, underwent severe emo3onal trauma and financial hardship, due to which the appeal could not be ins3tuted within the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [2] prescribed period. It is submiCed that the delay is neither deliberate nor inten3onal. 4. Having heard learned counsel and examined the applica3on, this Court is not persuaded to condone the delay. 5. The appellants had ac3vely contested the claim pe33on before the learned Tribunal through a duly engaged counsel. Therefore, the plea that they were unaware of the legal procedure or the prescribed period of limita3on cannot cons3tute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act. A li3gant represented by counsel cannot ordinarily seek condona3on of delay merely on the ground of ignorance of legal technicali3es. 6. The plea of financial hardship is equally devoid of merit. Except for a bald asser3on, no documentary material or other convincing evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that the alleged financial constraints actually prevented the appellants from approaching this Court within the period of limita3on. Likewise, though the death of a family member undoubtedly causes immense grief, the applica3on does not disclose any specific circumstance explaining how such emo3onal distress con3nued to operate throughout the en3re period of delay or prevented the appellants from availing the statutory remedy within 3me.

7. It is well seCled that although the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive a liberal construc3on, the discre3on under Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act cannot be exercised in the absence of a bona fide and sa3sfactory explana3on covering the en3re period of delay. The explana3on furnished by the appellants is vague, general and unsupported by any material par3culars. Consequently, the delay of 125 days remains unexplained. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [3] 8. Accordingly, the applica3on is dismissed. 9. On merits, Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the only grievance raised in the present appeal is that compensa3on under the head of loss of consor3um has been awarded to the mother of the deceased but not to his brother. 10. This Court finds no merit in the said conten3on. 11. The concept of consor3um has undergone considerable expansion through judicial pronouncements. However, the law as authorita3vely explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Na onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR Civil 1009, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognizes spousal, parental and filial consor3um. A sibling does not ordinarily fall within the category of beneficiaries en3tled to compensa3on under the conven3onal head of consor3um.

12. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has already awarded filial consor3um to the mother of the deceased in accordance with the seCled legal posi3on. No legal right has been shown in favour of the brother to claim consor3um independently. Thus, the sole ground urged in support of the appeal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. No other argument has been advanced to demonstrate that the compensa3on assessed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any error in the assessment of income, mul3plier, deduc3ons or the conven3onal heads. 14. Accordingly, even on merits, no case for enhancement is made out. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1408-2026 (O&M) [4] 15. Resultantly, CM-5398-CII-2026 seeking condona3on of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limita3on. Even otherwise, on merits also, the appeal is found to be devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. 07.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.08 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document